Internet Explorer 10 for Windows 7 edges a bit closer to prime time

The latest private test build will be the last.

Though Internet Explorer 10 is a shipping and built-in part of Windows 8, it's still not out for Windows 7. Microsoft hasn't announced when exactly it will be out for its older platform, but users shouldn't be waiting much longer: participants on the private beta program have been told that they won't be receiving any more beta versions, and that the next build will be the release build. This was first reported by ZDNet's Mary Jo Foley.

Until the final release, Windows 7 users wanting to try the newest version of Microsoft's browser will have to make do with a preview release that came out in November.

The slowness in releasing what should amount to an identical browser to the one that's already available for Windows 8 appears to be caused, at least in part, by Microsoft's development and porting of various Windows 8 features to Windows 7. Windows 8 includes updated versions of several Windows technologies such as the Direct2D accelerated drawing API and the DirectWrite text API. These updated APIs are being shipped as a platform update for Windows 7 that's currently still in beta.

This mirrors the release of Internet Explorer 9 for Windows 7 and Windows Vista. Windows 7 included new APIs such as the first versions of Direct2D and DirectWrite. These were backported to Windows Vista and shipped as a platform update.

Considering how widespread adblock addons are on other browsers, I wonder if collapse of IE (should it even come) will not collapse internet economy, currently sustained by ad revenue. (last I checked adblock for IE was paid, and therefore rarely used, if at all)

Unfortunately with IE users glacial rate of upgrading it will probably be several years before it surpasses IE8 and IE9 to claim the title.

IE updates are pushed out automatically and silently now via Windows Update.

That may be MS's intent; but it's clearly not working well. After almost 2 years IE8 still has a larger share than IE9. Despite ~5/9ths of windows computers being able to run IE9, roughly 2/3rds of them are on IE8 or earlier.

If IE10 actually does take a large, abrupt share of the market when it becomes available like new FF/Chrome versions do I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Unfortunately with IE users glacial rate of upgrading it will probably be several years before it surpasses IE8 and IE9 to claim the title.

IE updates are pushed out automatically and silently now via Windows Update.

That may be MS's intent; but it's clearly not working well. After almost 2 years IE8 still has a larger share than IE9. Despite ~5/9ths of windows computers being able to run IE9, roughly 2/3rds of them are on IE8 or earlier.

If IE10 actually does take a large, abrupt share of the market when it becomes available like new FF/Chrome versions do I'll be pleasantly surprised.

I believe that the automatic installation of new versions for IE is only in IE10 on Windows 8. My IE9 on Win7 "About" screen just shows version info; the IE10 "About" screen on Windows 8 shows version info and has a checkbox for "Automatically install new versions" which is checked by default.

Unfortunately with IE users glacial rate of upgrading it will probably be several years before it surpasses IE8 and IE9 to claim the title.

IE updates are pushed out automatically and silently now via Windows Update.

That may be MS's intent; but it's clearly not working well. After almost 2 years IE8 still has a larger share than IE9. Despite ~5/9ths of windows computers being able to run IE9, roughly 2/3rds of them are on IE8 or earlier.

If IE10 actually does take a large, abrupt share of the market when it becomes available like new FF/Chrome versions do I'll be pleasantly surprised.

That's because IE9 does not run on Windows XP. On Windows 7 systems IE9 adoption has been growing at a faster rate than other browsers.

Unlike the factors that compelled the long transition away from IE6, there is very little reason to stick with IE9 vs. IE10. I expect it will gain traction rather quickly when it moves onto the world's most widely used version of Windows.

I believe that the automatic installation of new versions for IE is only in IE10 on Windows 8. My IE9 on Win7 "About" screen just shows version info; the IE10 "About" screen on Windows 8 shows version info and has a checkbox for "Automatically install new versions" which is checked by default.

I don't believe the opt-out UI element exists in IE9 because the policy change came afterward, but by default now, automatic updates are enabled across all versions of IE on Windows XP and newer:

I believe that the automatic installation of new versions for IE is only in IE10 on Windows 8. My IE9 on Win7 "About" screen just shows version info; the IE10 "About" screen on Windows 8 shows version info and has a checkbox for "Automatically install new versions" which is checked by default.

I don't believe the opt-out UI element exists in IE9 because the policy change came afterward, but by default now, automatic updates are enabled across all versions of IE on Windows XP and newer:

IE, programmatically, carries so much baggage from the old days, it really must be a terror to code these days. MSFT would be much better of if it began parallel dev of a brand new browser from scratch. It will never keep up with Chrome or Firefox as is.

Leather Rope - Honestly IE is possibly the least painful browser to code for now. FF tends to be buggier and break stuff with it's frequent updates and Chrome (even though I use it because it's definitely the most secure) is the browser I absolute hate coding for. Too many of those strange one-off issues with it - This works perfectly in Safari, IE and FF but this one image is shifted 2px in Chrome... - I've chased more crap like that with Chrome than all the other browsers combined.

Unfortunately with IE users glacial rate of upgrading it will probably be several years before it surpasses IE8 and IE9 to claim the title.

IE updates are pushed out automatically and silently now via Windows Update.

That may be MS's intent; but it's clearly not working well. After almost 2 years IE8 still has a larger share than IE9. Despite ~5/9ths of windows computers being able to run IE9, roughly 2/3rds of them are on IE8 or earlier.

If IE10 actually does take a large, abrupt share of the market when it becomes available like new FF/Chrome versions do I'll be pleasantly surprised.

That's because IE9 does not run on Windows XP. On Windows 7 systems IE9 adoption has been growing at a faster rate than other browsers.

Unlike the factors that compelled the long transition away from IE6, there is very little reason to stick with IE9 vs. IE10. I expect it will gain traction rather quickly when it moves onto the world's most widely used version of Windows.

I guess I should've been more explicit. While XP's nonsupport is a factor, and assuming IE's share is roughly constant across windows versions, ~1/3rd of the computers capable of running IE9 are still running an out of date version.

I don't use IE mainly now for the reason that it just uses FAR too much screen space (always has). I gather it is pretty good by some standards. But I did upgrade to IE10beta on my 7 machine simply because IE9 was utterly screwed on it for reasons I never really cared to figure out. So far the beta, for a little as I ever use it, seems to work OK. I mainly use Firefox with Comodo Dragon as the first back up. Really don't trust Chrome about phoning home to Google.

That joke's been around a while I think, but these days, "better" may not always trend in the way you expect it to.

Yeah, I don't know where I got it from... but I'm not gonna try and pretend it was my original work. Some smart ass around the office probably said it and I just posted it.

I also hear that time to time and it's always from dumb asses trying to be funny.

No argument there. I've got not problem admitting I'm a dumb ass.

Granted I don't go around calling other people that on ars but hey... each to his own.

Well, if you go around offending harding working people who put out a quality product by spreading FUD against it and being a tool to the marketing departements of Firefox/Chrome/Opera/Safari, you can expect to be called a name. Don't feel too bad, I see a ton of them here on ars lol.

Though I understand that Chrome is the most secure, I've always been concerned about the tracking that I have PRESUMED Google included in it. (I simply don't like the privacy invasion of being tracked.)

IE, programmatically, carries so much baggage from the old days, it really must be a terror to code these days. MSFT would be much better of if it began parallel dev of a brand new browser from scratch. It will never keep up with Chrome or Firefox as is.

Keeping up with Firefox and Chrome is way, way down on Microsoft's to-do list for IE. For starters, the most critical audience, corporate desktops, does not like seeing a new version pushed out every few weeks. They rarely update for anything beyond critical bug and threats on anything less than an annual basis. This is why MS keeps stuff that they have code for but hasn't been made real by the W3C out of the release version. The corporate customers don't want to go down that road again of investing a lot of money and effort in new functions that haven't been standardized yet. This is how IE6 became such an albatross. When it shipped it had a number of very advanced features that ended up being implemented differently once the standards were worked out. Byt hen it was too late.

If you look at what has been happening since IE 8, they have essentially been shipping two browsers within one app. The compatibility mode activated by the broken page icon invokes a lot of old stuff that sits latent when using current IE on a modern site.

Its not that we want to use IE, but if IT persons from colleges or schools or research institutions made proper web back-ends for libraries or other information/grading apps, that actually worked with ff or chrome or even opera, we'd stop. Just as a note, the reference/biblo depository interface from my old university still has a Best Viewed with IE6 pin on it. Its either IE6 or a passworded ftp mirror that tops at 30Kb/sec downloads.

Its not that we want to use IE, but if IT persons from colleges or schools or research institutions made proper web back-ends for libraries or other information/grading apps, that actually worked with ff or chrome or even opera, we'd stop. Just as a note, the reference/biblo depository interface from my old university still has a Best Viewed with IE6 pin on it. Its either IE6 or a passworded ftp mirror that tops at 30Kb/sec downloads.

Very pertinent post. Some of "us" that have to deal with IE on a daily basis are exposed to this kind of stuff constantly.

I know that the backend transition is neither easy nor equitably front facing. I get that. But, at some point you've got to just let the legacy cruft die a slow death that it deserves.

Its not that we want to use IE, but if IT persons from colleges or schools or research institutions made proper web back-ends for libraries or other information/grading apps, that actually worked with ff or chrome or even opera, we'd stop. Just as a note, the reference/biblo depository interface from my old university still has a Best Viewed with IE6 pin on it. Its either IE6 or a passworded ftp mirror that tops at 30Kb/sec downloads.

Very pertinent post. Some of "us" that have to deal with IE on a daily basis are exposed to this kind of stuff constantly.

I know that the backend transition is neither easy nor equitably front facing. I get that. But, at some point you've got to just let the legacy cruft die a slow death that it deserves.

WE did not create this quagmire, MS did. Bite the bullet and move on.

The problem is convincing the people controlling the money for such upgrades. Microsoft would be perfectly happy for all of the legacy IE6 stuff to be taken behind the barn and shot. They've done some white papers trying to demonstrate that the cost of keeping IE6 reliant code going is greater than moving to something compliant with recent standards.

But it's the Y2K problem all over again. None of that stuff was intended to be in use for the lengthy spans they were kept limping along at a cost that was deemed less than modernization. It's not enough to want to fix problems by getting rid of legacy resources. You have to sell it.

Crap...but maybe I can squeeze work for extra Windows licenses, for VMs so I can 'validate and test' the customer-facing pages and web apps.

I've been skating by running IE8, with the e-comm person running IE9. I've got FF (and let it update, which it does constantly) and Opera. Opera's my primary, and for the most part, everything I develop in Opera tends to work fine in other browsers (especially with the addition of the Google js that can make IE act like a compatible browser, which was very useful once we didn't have any machines with IE7 or IE6 internally.)

I ignore Chrome, as Google Analytics tells me I don't need to put a lot of work into it - the share Chrome holds in pretty well strictly business environments is tiny on my pages. Plus I don't trust Google and I'm too lazy to compile Chromium myself.

Considering how widespread adblock addons are on other browsers, I wonder if collapse of IE (should it even come) will not collapse internet economy, currently sustained by ad revenue. (last I checked adblock for IE was paid, and therefore rarely used, if at all)

IE has a free built-in ad blocking feature, you just need to activate one of the filters. One of them based on adblock plus' list.

So, this apparently lets me upgrade my Windows 7 to have just the good stuff from Windows 8, for free? Thanks MS!

I have to wonder how prevalent this mindset is, and if Microsoft has considered it. Pushing IE 10 and the required technology tweaks out to any prior version of Windows may slow Windows 8 adoption. To a tiny, insignificant degree? Perhaps - I have no feel for the numbers. But people on the fence about upgrading from 7 to 8 might not need much encouragement to fall back to the 7 side. Perhaps the advantages of having the same code in both OS versions outweigh such considerations.